Crowd Sourced Traffic, LLC v. Waze, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Waze, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3310886.), filed by Crowd Sourced Traffic, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ni, Hao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

CROWD SOURCED TRAFFIC, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
WAZE, INC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-469
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Crowd Sourced Traffic, LLC (“Crowd Sourced Traffic”) by and through its
undersigned counsel, files this Original Complaint against Waze, Inc. as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendant’s infringement of

Plaintiff’s United States Patent No. 7,440,842, entitled “System for Transmitting, Processing,
Receiving, and Displaying Traffic Information ” (the “’842 patent”; a copy of which is attached
as Exhibit A) and United States Patent No. 7,613,564, entitled “System for Transmitting,
Processing, Receiving, and Displaying Traffic Information” (the “’564 patent” and collectively
with the ‘842 patent as “the patents-in-suit”; a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B). Crowd
Sourced Traffic is the assignee of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
monetary damages.

Page 1

PARTIES
2.

Plaintiff Crowd Sourced Traffic is a limited liability company organized and

existing under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business at 104 East Houston Street,
Suite 170, Marshall, Texas 75670. Crowd Sourced Traffic is the assignee of all title and interest
of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff possesses the entire right to sue for infringement and recover past
damages.
3.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Waze, Inc. (“Waze”) is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business located at 240 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA, 94301.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et

seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 13331 and 1338(a).
5.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Waze because Waze has minimum

contacts within the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas; Waze has purposefully
availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern
District of Texas; Waze has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas;
Waze regularly conducts business within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of
Texas; and Plaintiff’s cause of action arise directly from Waze’s business contacts and other
activities in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.

Page 2

6.

More specifically, Waze, directly and/or through intermediaries, ships, distributes,

offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its
products and services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas.
Upon information and belief, Waze has committed patent infringement in the State of Texas and
in the Eastern District of Texas, has contributed to patent infringement in the State of Texas and
in the Eastern District of Texas and/or has induced others to commit patent infringement in the
State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Waze solicits customers in the State of
Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Waze has many paying customers who are residents
of the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas and who each use Waze’s products and
services in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
7.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391

and 1400(b).

COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
8.

United States Patent No 7,440,842, entitled “System for Transmitting, Processing,

Receiving, and Displaying Traffic Information,” was duly and legally issued by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on October 21, 2008 after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the
assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘842 patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the ‘842 patent including the right to sue for infringement and recover past
damages.
9.

Upon information and belief, Waze has infringed and continues to infringe one or

more claims of the ‘842 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly
or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, a traffic

Page 3

information computer system that obtains data from users. Upon information and belief, Waze
has also contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘842 patent and/or actively
induced its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘842 patent, in this district and
elsewhere in the United States.
10.

Waze’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from

Plaintiff.
11.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Waze the damages sustained by Plaintiff as

a result of Waze’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be
less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 3
U.S.C. § 284.
12.

Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ‘842 patent will

continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at
law, unless enjoined by this Court.

COUNT II – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
13.

United States Patent No 7,613,564, entitled “System for Transmitting, Processing,

Receiving, and Displaying Traffic Information,” was duly and legally issued by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on November 3, 2009 after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is
the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘564 patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the ‘564 patent including the right to sue for infringement and recover past
damages.
14.

Upon information and belief, Waze has infringed and continues to infringe one or

more claims of the ‘564 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly

Page 4

or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, a traffic
information computer system that obtains data from users. Upon information and belief, Waze
has also contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘564 patent and/or actively
induced its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘564 patent, in this district and
elsewhere in the United States.
15.

Waze’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from

Plaintiff.
16.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Waze the damages sustained by Plaintiff as

a result of Waze’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be
less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 3
U.S.C. § 284.
17.

Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ‘564 patent will

continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at
law, unless enjoined by this Court.

JURY DEMAND
18.

Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

PRAYER FOR RELEIF
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Waze, and that
the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:

Page 5

A.

An adjudication that one or more claims of the patents-in-suit have been
infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Waze
and/or by others to whose infringement Waze has contributed and/or by others
whose infringement has been induced by Waze;

B.

An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the
Waze’s acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest;

C.

That one or more of the Waze’s acts of infringement be found to be willful
from the time that Waze became aware of the infringing nature of their
actions, which is the time of filing of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint at the
latest, and that the Court award treble damages for the period of such willful
infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

D.

A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining the
Waze from further acts of (1) infringement, (2) contributory infringement, and
(3) actively inducing infringement with respect to the claims of the patents-insuit;

E.

That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

F.

Any further relief that this Court deem just and proper.

DATED November 7, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,
By: \s\ Hao Ni
Hao Ni
Texas Bar No. 24047205
[e-mail]

Page 6

Stevenson Moore
Texas bar No. 24076573
[e-mail]
NI LAW FIRM, PLLC
3102 Maple Ave. Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Douglas L. Bridges
GA Bar No. 080889
Jacqueline K. Burt
GA Bar No. 425322
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30328
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
CROWD SOURCED TRAFFIC, LLC

Page 7